Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra ... vs Supadu Mahadu Patil on 5 May, 2021
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
1 118-2003-FA+Group.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 118 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector,
Jalgaon .. Appellant
Versus
Supadu Mahadu Patil .. Respondent
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 122 OF 2003
(The State of Maharashtra Vs. Smt. Narmadabai Vitthal Patil)
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 119 OF 2003
(The State of Maharashtra Vs. Vishwanath Baliram Patil)
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 121 OF 2003
(The State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Vitthal Patil)
...
Mr. B. V. Virdhe, AGP for Appellant-State
Mr. A.V. Dixit, Advocate for the respondent
...
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.
DATE : 5th MAY, 2021
ORAL ORDER :-
The present Appeals are arising out of the Judgment and
Award dated 09-09-1998 passed in Land Acquisition Reference No. 146 of
1998, 143 of 1998, 144 of 1998 and Judgment and Award dated
02-09-1998 in LAR no. 163 of 1998 and 167 of 1998 by the learned
Reference Court, enhancing the amount of compensation for the acquired
lands.
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 10:18:53 :::
2 118-2003-FA+Group.odt
2. The lands-in-question are acquired for the purpose of M.I.
Tank Wanegaon Project. The Section 4 Notification was issued on 06-07-
1989. Thereafter, Award was passed on 18-09-1992. Feeling dis-satisfied
with the amount of compensation granted by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Reference were preferred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 in which the amount has been enhanced to the tune of
Rs.30,000/- per Hectare from Rs.12,000/- per Hectare. The said
Judgments and Awards are under challenge in these Appeals.
3. I have heard the learned AGP for the appellant-State of
Maharashtra and learned counsel for the respondents-claimants.
4. The only ground challenging the impugned Judgment and
Award is that, the amount granted by the learned Reference Court is
exorbitant. It is pointed out that the interest under Section 28 of the L.A.
Act ought to have granted from the date of Award but has been granted
from the date of notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act, contrary to
Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in a case of State of Maharashtra
Versus Kailash Shiva Rangari1.
5. To consider the rival contentions of the parties, I have gone
through the record and proceedings and also the impugned Judgments
and Awards.
6. After going through the Judgments and Awards, it is reveled
that the learned Reference Court has scrutinized the oral as well as
documentary evidence available on record in detail, while determining the
market value. The learned Reference Court has also considered the
relevant factors which are to be taken into consideration as per the well
settled principles of law, while arriving at a just and fair compensation.
1 2016(4) ALL MR 513 (F.B.)
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 10:18:53 :::
3 118-2003-FA+Group.odt
7. The Reference Court while determining the amount of
compensation, has considered the oral evidence of the Expert valuer as
regards the trees and also considered the oral evidence of the witness of
the SLAO and after considering the same, observed that the Government
witness had visited the land after one year of Section 4 notification and
found dry trees. The Reference Court has further observed that it is
obvious because after section 4 notification, the claimants did not take
care of the trees and the result was the trees became dry. However, in the
evidence of the Expert Valuer, the valuation worked out by him was Rs.
1,79,737/-.
7.1. The Court has considered the relevant evidence available on
record oral as well as documentary. Similarly, as regards the land, the
Court has considered the sale instances and found the said sale instances
as genuine one and bonafide transaction and arrived at a conclusion that
the just and fair compensation would be Rs.80,000/- per Hectare for
jirayat land and Rs.1,60,000/- per Hectare for bagayat land, which is just
and proper.
8. Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant in this
matter to show contrary or to show perversity in the findings recorded by
the learned Reference Court. In that view of the matter, I do not find any
merit in the present matters.
9. Moreover, in view of the Government policy not to file or
contest appeal in the matter wherein the amount awarded by the learned
Reference Court is not more than four times than the amount awarded by
SLAO, as per Government Resolution dated 03-11-2016 and subsequent
corrigendum dated 23-02-2017 issued in that regard, I am of the view that
on this count also the Appeals need to be dismissed.
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 10:18:53 :::
4 118-2003-FA+Group.odt
10. However, in view of the Judgment of Full Bench in State of
Maharashtra Versus Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra), operative part of the
impugned Judgment and Award needs to be modified and the interest
awarded by learned Reference Court 'from the date of taking possession of
the land' needs to be granted 'from the date of Award'.
11. Accordingly, the present Appeals are partly allowed as
under :
ORDER
(I) The Appeals are partly allowed.
(II) The operative part of the impugned Judgments and Awards
passed by the Reference Court is modified, and, it is held that
the claimants are entitled for the interest under Section 28 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, from the date of Award. For
the first year, the interest would be @ 9% per annum and for
the subsequent period, it would be @ 15% per annum till
realization of the entire amount of the Award.
(III) No order as to costs.
( ANIL S. KILOR )
JUDGE
arp/-
